I offer the following observations and recommendations to improve tourism management in the city of Savannah — particularly in the Landmark District.

First and foremost, Historic Savannah Foundation agrees with and supports the Tourism Advisory Committee’s recommendations. We concur with the presented items, and we applaud the leadership of the chair, staff, TAC members and citizens who so constructively participated in the process.

Their work goes on, but they have made great strides and should be given all the resources they need to continue in earnest.

Second, HSF would like to focus on a few key recommendations — beginning with the city’s need to develop, enact and enforce a new heritage tourism management plan.

Given the complexity and scale of the tourism industry — and the prominent place it occupies in our local economy — this subject is the top priority and demands that we undertake a comprehensive management plan that will ensure the sustainability of both the tourism industry and the integrity and quality of life of the Landmark District — the primary draw for the 12 million people who visit Savannah each year.

Third, and related to the second, in order to draft and adopt such a tourism management plan, we need adequate time and resources devoted to this endeavor.

This means that the city must afford the necessary time, personnel and financial resources to organize a solid plan. Allowing enough time — by imposing a “time out” or moratorium on new tour businesses — is a critical component of the process.

I fully understand and respect that the “time out” should last only as long as it takes to draft, review and adopt a plan. Rather than be arbitrary and say six months or one year, we should consult with experts and professionals and determine a reasonable timeline for undertaking such an endeavor — just as was done when we recently revised the preservation ordinance.

And, of course, a plan of this nature will cost money and require additional staff time to oversee, but it is a responsible and worthy investment that the city should embrace.

Fourth, a plan and an ordinance are only as good as they are enforced. Enforcement which leads to universal compliance is the goal and, therefore, should be a priority with the city.

Tourism is a 7-day a week enterprise in Savannah, so enforcement should mirror the same schedule. Staff should be provided what they need to do their work — just as what has recently been done with respect to greater attention being devoted to maintaining our city’s squares.

Fifth, it was recently pointed out that tourism in the Landmark District is approaching saturation, if not over-saturation. In very rough terms, Charleston, S.C., hosts about half as many visitors as Savannah, but they generate about twice as much revenue.

It would seem, then, that more is not always better. We can help ensure quality by limiting quantity. Experience shows that carrots often work better than sticks. So, establishing thresholds, capping the number of tours — a la a medallion system applied to New York City cabs — and incentivizing tours to explore overlooked parts of our historic city and county (that feature more than a dozen historic districts) should be explored and pursued.

Sixth, follow the money.

Track and audit the city’s Preservation Fee.

(The city tacks on a fee of $1 per adult tourist, and 50 cents per child, for sightseeing tours in the Historic District. Tour companies submit the revenue based on their own accounting. The funds are supposed to be used to maintain and improve the city’s parks, squares and monuments.)

Is it being collected to its fullest extent? Is it being used in the right places ... for the things it is intended to support? Or is it paying for things that should otherwise be considered basic infrastructure improvements that the city should budget and pay for from the General Fund?

The Preservation Fund should be dedicated to helping steward the resources in the Landmark District that are the reason why people come here in the first place. Take care of the goose that laid the golden egg.

Seventh, we are not alone. It is not necessary for the city to solve this puzzle unto itself. We not only have bright citizens in our midst (who should be more regularly and thoroughly surveyed — especially downtown residents), but we have other cities to look at and learn from, such as Annapolis, Md., and Charleston among others. Continued communication with the Downtown Neighborhood Association and other like-minded interests should be sustained.

A rising tide may lift all boats, but it also brings in a lot of muck. And as swiftly as the tide comes in — if not properly managed or channeled — it can leave.

The heritage tourism industry is vital to Savannah’s future. With good management, it can be sustained — along with the integrity and charm of the Landmark District — for decades to come.

Toward that end, Historic Savannah Foundation commits its assistance and resources to ensure good management, and we look forward to working with TAC, the private tourism industry and the city to achieve it.

Daniel G. Carey is president and CEO of the Historic Savannah Foundation.